Whitaker v. Commonwealth

933 N.E.2d 970, 458 Mass. 1001, 2010 Mass. LEXIS 679
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided September 21, 2010·Published

Opinion

Larry Whitaker appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, from the denial of his motion for a new trial, by which he sought to withdraw his guilty pleas to various offenses. The case is before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires Whitaker to “set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means.” Here, Whitaker had an adequate remedy in the ordinary appellate process, as an appeal from the denial of a motion for a new trial can be taken as of right to a panel of the Appeals Court.1-2 “Our general superintendence power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly, not as a substitute for the normal appellate process or merely to provide an additional layer of appellate review after the normal process has run its course.” Votta v. Police Dep’t of Billerica, 444 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2005). The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

Judgment affirmed.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Whitaker v. Commonwealth, 933 N.E.2d 970, 458 Mass. 1001, 2010 Mass. LEXIS 679 (Mass. 2010).

933 N.E.2d 970 (Whitaker v. Commonwealth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Votta v. Police Department
826 N.E.2d 199 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2005)